§

Ex parte Seevinck et al.

08408088 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 1999)
Ex parte Seevinck et al.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Wied v. Valhi, Inc.

    465 U.S. 1026 (1984)   Cited 260 times
    Stating that "[t]o demand a slavish adherence to the procedural sequence and to require these defendants, in this case, to articulate the words of renewal once the motion had been taken under advisement, would be 'to succumb to a nominalism and a rigid trial scenario as equally at variance as ambush with the spirit of the rules.'"

  2. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc.

    3 F.3d 404 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 344 times
    Finding that "[a]s the party moving for attorney fees, the burden was on [the prevailing party] to prove the exceptional nature of the case by clear and convincing evidence"

  3. Etter v. Commissioner of Patents And, Trademarks

    474 U.S. 828 (1985)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying American rule to § 362

  4. In re Paulsen

    30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning

  5. In re Hiniker Co.

    150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 180 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding rejection for obviousness even though prior art performed less efficiently than patent's device because it refused to read specification's operational characteristics into broader claims

  6. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist

    730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 200 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

  7. Standard Havens Products v. Gencor Indus

    953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding method claims were not directly infringed by the mere sale of an apparatus capable of performing the claimed process

  8. In re Etter

    756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that whether one prior art reference can be incorporated into another is "basically irrelevant."

  9. In re Yamamoto

    740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 111 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”

  10. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    713 F.2d 760 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 111 times
    In Kalman, this court determined that the district court's fact finding of identity of invention (reached after a four day bench trial) was not clearly erroneous, and that "the stipulation by the parties, coupled with [Kimberly Clark's] failure to counter Kalman's affidavits and evidence submitted in his motion for summary judgment" dictated a finding of infringement.

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 1.192-1.196 - Reserved

    37 C.F.R. § 1.192-1.196   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "a statement . . . that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together," and an explanation "why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable"

  14. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)